After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by jingram058

So, if they've paid their debt, there is no acceptance? What, then, is the purpose of paying one's debt?

I say yes, if they were caught, convicted and incarcerated or otherwise served out whatever punishment as a result of judge or jury.

If we engage in speculation that someone is guilty of this or that, based on our own circumstantial evidence, that is different, and the owner/moderator should make the final decision.

If they are incorrigible, repeat offenders, then the answer should clearly be no.

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

[jingram058]

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

This comes up all the time, not just net54. All the holiers than thou have opinions on this. What constitutes paying one's debt that squares things in their eyes? Can it even be done? Should a convicted felon who has by all accounts paid his debt to society be allowed to vote?

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

[mq711]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not a court of law. We can choose to associate or not with people who scam us. It seems clear to me. I don’t deal with scammers and fraudsters, convicted or unconvicted(the vast majority). It seems a common sense policy to avoid headaches and getting robbed.

I get a free speech argument that even the most detestable should be allowed to speak. I don’t disagree with it, if there was a rule that speech of any kind is allowed and anyone may speak. Letting more scammers into the BST seems to be an unnecessary disaster to create though.

This response summarizes my opinion also.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Well Leon asked about someone that was convicted of fraud in the hobby and there are different types of second chances if you had an employee steal money from you would you give them a second chance to work for you or if someone screwed you in a card sale would you buy from them or sell to them again?

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

[bnorth]

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[Leon]

There are a hundred or more fake registrations trying to get in, per day. They get snagged and eventually deleted. Of course a few scammers have gotten in but we have beaten that horse.

Originally Posted by bnorth

My vote is to let them or anybody else that wants to join, join. If they do something wrong then ban them or maybe not depending on who they are.

I did notice easily 100s of new members this morning that might need to be banned. It was like new accounts popping up every few seconds.

[Tomi]

Might as well be a case by case basis. Some crimes are huge and some are minor. Some are forgivable and some not.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you look at all the stuff Blowout has brought to light, and how little has been done in terms of actual arrests, it seems to me it would have to be a very big, very obvious and deliberate offense, to actually be charged and then convicted.

So, we're not talking about a guy who just trimmed a card or two, or swatted a few baseballs to add "game use" to a GU bat. We're talking about very egregious behavior - reported, investigated, arrested, tried, convicted.

My answer is still no in regards to these people too if there is strong enough evidence. I only pointed out the convicted part in my reply to James because that's what Leon stated.

[ejharrington]

No. I doubt any of them paid all the restitution for all of their crimes. Probably just the one where they got caught.

[raulus]

Hi Leon:

Thanks for raising this question, as I think it's worthy of some introspection and calm deliberation as we evaluate the best approach to take here. And while I am still a bit of a n00b around these parts, hopefully my opinion counts as something north of nothing, although others can debate just how big the spread should be there.

When I was a younger man, I would have encouraged you to go full old testament on them. Full lifetime ban, and erase them from existence. Now that I'm a little bit more of a seasoned chap, I'm inclined to be a bit less old testament, as I've learned that I need grace as much as the next fellow, and I'm grateful that death is no longer the punishment for even the most minor infractions.

At the same time, I am a big believer that all things should be done in wisdom and in order. Doing nothing seems like it could be a recipe for disaster, as acts of recidivism have the potential to harm those around us again, particularly if they are not familiar with the past indiscretions, high crimes, and misdemeanors against the hobby.

As an accountant, I’ve always found that a bit of disclosure is a helpful approach, as it is often short of more draconian censures, and yet still a lot more than nothing. I wonder if there might be some ability to disclose to the reader that the poster in question has been guilty in the past of misconduct in the industry. At the risk of going full Nathanial Hawthorne, maybe a big “F” for fraudster somewhere in their handle and/or in the footers to their posts? While still incredibly embarrassing and ignominious, this would at least allow the perpetrator an opportunity to move amongst us and participate in discussions, while still allowing the unsuspecting and trusting of us to be on notice about who we are dealing with.

Just an idea! And perhaps something that the technology might render difficult to address. But perhaps an option that walks the line between all or nothing.

[Yoda]

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If priced correctly there would be a line around the block to buy from Mr Mastro or any other seller.

One of my favorite conversations I have had many times over the years goes something like this.

Do you know who this eBay seller is?

Me: yes that is ----.

OH, I didn't know that was his account. He has a card I want.

Me: Is it one of the obviously altered cards he has listed?

No, I think I will buy it and hope I don't see any problems with the card when I get it.

Me: Good luck you know he throws a hissy fit when someone tries to return one of his altered cards.

Stuff
trumps
all

In a hobby where elite card doctors and their enablers are in positions of power and influence, and we see endless threads praising them, the purported concern about associating with fraudsters seems a bit inconsistent.

[butchie_t]

Leon,

It all comes down to you in the end. I am new here and do not know a lot of the background of who has cheated the collector and their membership here.

My personal opinion is no. Once a cheater always a cheater. Pretty harsh, I am sure but you did ask.

Regards,

Butch

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Stuff
trumps
all
.

Only
If
You
Let
It

[BobC]

This is likely to get a lot of divided, and possibly interesting (ie: extreme), answers. There was a thread back right after it came out about how CSG had agreed to partner with PWCC in providing PWCC customers with preferred/preferential grading services. And even though as has already been mentioned in this thread, PWCC has not ever been formally convicted or found guilty of any actual hobby theft or fraud, let alone ever even actually being formally charged with any crime, yet there were people posting in that earlier thread that were more or less accusing, judging, and sentencing CSG as being just as guilty as they felt PWCC was. And as a result, stated they would not do business with CSG, and more or less seemed to be urging others to do the same and avoid using them as well. All to basically punish CSG for daring to do business with PWCC.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten an even more resounding and emphatic NO vote in the poll based on that type of logic and thinking among members on here. Also found it somewhat amusing that those same people who were so quick to condemn CSG through nothing more than guilt by association haven't dared (apparently) to utter a single word about how CSG is now a prominent advertiser here on Net54. They were so against CSG and refusing to use them as a result, I'm a bit surprised they haven't likewise quit being on Net54 since it is now advertising for them. Guilt by association, right? Funny how some people can turn their dislike and prejudice off or on, when they like and in whichever way best suites them at the time.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

Absolutely, and I wish Bill and his family nothing but the best!

[robw1959]

Yes, I would. I have seen an interview with Bill during which he provides with great honesty all of the details involved in bringing that notorious PSA 8 T206 card of Honus Wagner to auction. I believe he has moved past those earlier temptations . . . and there are strong temptations for auction owners who can see every max bid and know just how much to shill it up to that max.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not necessarily sympathetic toward convicted scammers and fraudsters. But I don't believe anyone is completely honest in this life either. Since I do believe in second chances, I will echo what a previous member said - go ahead and admit them, but if they screw up one time, ban them for life.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Would you buy a card listed on B/S/T section of our beloved Net 54 from Bill Mastro? Bill has paid his legal dues but many hobbyists have long memories.

[Johnny630]

In God I trust in all others NCIC.